Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of July 20 - 24, 2026

The Summary of NLRB Decisions is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for the opinions of the NLRB.  Inquiries should be directed to the Office of the Executive Secretary at 202‑273‑1940.

Summarized Board Decisions

Enright Seeding, Inc. (25-CA-210670; 374 NLRB No. !42)  Davenport, IA, July 21, 2026.

On remand from the Eighth Circuit Court, the Board dismissed the General Counsel’s remaining basis for alleging that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to respond fully to the Union’s requests for relevant information.  The Court rejected the Board’s initial finding that the Respondent was bound to provide the requested information by virtue of a Section 9(a) bargaining relationship with the Union.  The Board’s remand decision thus addressed the General Counsel’s alternative argument that the Respondent was obliged to provide the information under the parties’ Section 8(f) collective-bargaining agreements. 

In rejecting that contention, the Board found that the Union’s unfair labor practice charges relating to the information requests were untimely under Section 10(b) because they were filed more than 6 months after the Respondent gave “clear and unequivocal notice” that it had repudiated the Section 8(f) agreements.  Consequently, the Board concluded, it must dismiss the complaint allegations based on those late-filed charges. 

 Charge filed by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO.  Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued his decision on May 10, 2021.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

ESCNC, LLC d/b/a Surgery Center of Northern California  (20–CA–358895; 375 NLRB No. 1)  Roseville, CA, July 21, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the ground that the Respondent failed to raise any issues that were not, or could not have been, litigated in the underlying representation proceeding in which the Union was certified as the bargaining representative.  The Board found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.

 Charge filed by Teamsters Local No. 150.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Sea World of Florida LLC d/b/a Discovery Cove  (12-CA-368374; 375 NLRB No. 4)   Orlando, FL, July 22, 2026. 

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the ground that the Respondent failed to raise any issues that were not, or could not have been, litigated in the underlying representation proceeding in which the Union was certified as the bargaining representative. The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.

Charge filed by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 30, AFL-CIO. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

                                                                                                 ***

Hale Construction, Inc.  (32-CA-373919; 375 NLRB No. 3)  Manteca, CA, July 22, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the ground that the Respondent failed to raise any issues that were not, or could not have been, litigated in the underlying representation proceeding in which the Union was certified as the bargaining representative.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.

 Charge filed by Bricklayers, Tilesetters and Allied Craft Workers, Local 3.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Starbucks Corporation  (19-RC-295849; 375 NLRB No. 7)  Seattle, WA, July 22, 2026. 

The Board granted the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision on Certain Objections as it raised substantial issues warranting review. On review, the Board reversed the Regional Director and sustained the challenges to two voters who hand-delivered their mail ballots to the Regional Office, instead of returning their ballots through the mail. The Board unanimously overruled the Employer’s objections to the election. Member Prouty, dissenting in part, would have overruled the challenges. 

Petitioner—Workers United a/w Service Employees International Union. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

***

DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc., d/b/a DaVita Vallejo  (20-RC-346835; 375 NLRB No. 2) Vallejo, CA, July 22, 2026.

The Board (Chairman Murphy and Member Prouty; Member Mayer, dissenting in part) denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Elections and the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision Overruling Employer’s Objections and Certification of Representative as they raised no substantial issues warranting review. In this regard, the Board found that the Employer had not met its burden to rebut the presumption that the petitioned-for single-facility unit was appropriate. The Board also explained that the Regional Director was not obligated to analyze whether the petitioned-for unit is readily identifiable and shares an internal community of interest under American Steel Construction, Inc., 372 NLRB No.23 (2022), because the Employer had not properly raised those issues. Finally, the Board clarified that the petitioning union does not bear an evidentiary burden to prove that the petitioned-for unit is appropriate. Member Mayer, dissenting in part, would have granted review and directed a hearing on the Employer’s objections.

Petitioner—SEIU, United Healthcare Workers - West. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Kroger Limited Partnership I d/b/a Kroger Delta Division (15-CA-280676 and15-CA-315052; 375 NLRB No. 6)  Little Rock, AR, July 23, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally ceasing collecting dues and remitting them to the Union pursuant to contractual dues-checkoff provisions when the parties’ collective-bargaining agreements expired. The Board also adopted the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unreasonably delaying in providing the Union with relevant requested information it requested pertaining to employees who had been or were experiencing payroll issues.

Charges filed by United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 2008.  Administrative Law Judge Sarah Karpinen issued her decision on March 21, 2024. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated in the decision. 

***

President and Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard University)  (01-CA-354044; 375 NLRB No. 5)  Cambridge, MA, July 23, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to provide the Union with a written report that it requested.  The Board found that the report was plainly relevant because it concerned one of the Union’s members, and the Respondent did not meet its burden to establish confidentiality.

Charge filed by Harvard University Police Association. Administrative Law Judge Paul Bogas issued his decision on December 23, 2025.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Everglades Partners LLC d/b/a Keke’s Breakfast Café  (12-CA-357963; 375 NLRB No. 8)  Boynton Beach, FL, July 23, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the complaint.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by removing an employee from its schedule and discharging him because he engaged in protected, concerted activities. 

Charge filed by an individual.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Manteca District Volunteer Ambulance Service  (32-CA-319646; 375 NLRB No. 10)  Sonora and Groveland, CA, July 23, 2026.

The Board (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer; Member Prouty, dissenting) denied the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the General Counsel’s and Charging Party Union’s Cross Motions for Summary Judgment as the parties failed to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact warranting a hearing and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Dissenting, Member Prouty would have granted the General Counsel’s and the Charging Party’s cross motions noting that no party asserted, and the record does not reveal, any material facts in dispute and that the Respondent failed to abide by its bargaining obligation after voluntarily recognizing the Charging Party as employees’ exclusive collective-bargaining representative—despite the filing of a decertification petition and the absence of a voluntary recognition bar under then-Section 103.21 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations—but prior to the Board’s certification of the results in a representation election.

Charge filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated in the decision.

***

Boxart, Inc.  (29-CA-370489; 375 NLRB No. 12)  Brooklyn, NY, July 24, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file a timely answer to the complaint.   The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging employees because it believed the employees had joined the Union and engaged in concerted activities and to discourage other employees from engaging in these activities. 

Charge filed by Teamsters Local 814.   Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Everyone Can Achieve Corporation (04-CA-338985 and 04-CA-344415; 375 NLRB No. 9)  Wilmington, DE, July 24, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s noncompliance with the provisions of the parties’ bilateral informal settlement agreement.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to furnish the Union with information necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the limited exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees.  The Board ordered the Respondent to furnish the Union with the information requested to the extent it has not already done so.

 Charges filed by Local 199, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc.  (19-RC-357182)  Seattle, WA, July 20, 2026.  The Board (Chairman Murphy and Member Prouty; Member Mayer, dissenting) denied the Employer's Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Member Mayer would have granted the Request for Review.  Petitioner—International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 46.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Norwich University - The Military College of Vermont  (03-RC-366072)  Northfield, VT, July 20, 2026.  The Board granted the Employer's Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election solely with respect to whether the petitioned-for unit is appropriate under extant precedent and denied the Request for Review in all other respects.  The Board also denied the Employer's Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision on Objections and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner—Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Union No. 597.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Constellation Energy Generation, LLC  (13-RC-372880)  Warrenville, IL, July 21, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Extraordinary Relief. Petitioner—International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 15. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Inland Lakes Management, Inc.  (07-RD-378895)  Muskegon, MI, July 21, 2026.  The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner—an individual.  Union—Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters (SIU), AFL-CIO.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

The Boeing Company/Millenium Space Systems, Inc.  (31-RC-374505)  El Segundo, CA, July 22, 2026.  The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Dismissing Petition.  The Board agreed with the Reginal Director that the petition was barred by the existing collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and Intervenor.  The Board agreed with the Petitioner that ratification is a prerequisite for a contract to operate as a bar only if the contract itself expressly requires ratification as a condition precedent.  But, contrary to the Petitioner’s arguments, the Board found that the extension/modification at issue in the case did not require ratification to be effective.  Thus, the lack of ratification did not prevent the petition from operating as an election bar.  Petitioner—International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO.  Intervenor—Cabinet Makers, Millmen and Industrial Carpenters, Local 721.  Chairman Murphy and Member Prouty participated.  Member Mayer was a member of the panel but is recused and did not participate in the decision.

Children's Hospital & Research Center at Oakland  (32-RC-367029)  Oakland, CA, July 23, 2026. The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Dismissing Petition as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 29. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Starbucks Corporation  (01-RC-359309)  Northampton, MA, July 24, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election and Decision and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  The Board specifically rejected the Employer’s arguments that the shift managers at the store in question had the supervisory authority to recommend discipline or assign work.  Petitioner—Workers United a/w Service Employees International Union.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra Inc.  (18-RC-373970)  Milwaukee, WI, July 24, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner—Milwaukee Musicians Association, Local 8 of the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

C Cases

Premier Private Physicians Management Company, LLC  (07-CA-305866)  Troy, MI, July 20, 2026.  The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment finding that the Respondent had not demonstrated that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law or that the allegations in the complaint were time-barred.  Charge filed by an individual.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Goodkind Group & Park Lane Hotel, as Joint Employers  (02-CA-372011)  Manhattan, NY, July 24, 2026.  The Board denied Goodkind Group's Petition to Revoke an investigative subpoena duces tecum and noted that, while the Board evaluated the petition in light of the Region’s modifications to the subpoena requests those modifications were not necessary to find the petition meritless.  The Board reasoned that the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and that the Petitioner failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Charge filed by Restaurant Workers Union, Local 1.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

Hospital Menonita de Guayama, Inc., Board No. 12-CA-214830 (reported at 371 NLRB No. 108) (D.C. Cir. July 21, 2026).

In a published opinion, in this case with a lengthy procedural history, the D.C. Circuit remanded the Board’s order that issued against this hospital in Guayama, Puerto Rico.  In the underlying decision, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Wilcox; Member Ring, dissenting in part) found that the Hospital, an undisputed successor, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) in numerous ways, including withdrawing recognition, after it purchased Hospital San Lucas and offered employment to all employees in five bargaining units represented by Unidad Laboral de Enfermeras (OS) y Empleados de la Salud.  The Board rejected the Hospital’s argument that it should overrule UGL-UNICCO Service Co., 357 NLRB 801 (2011), which held that a union enjoys an irrebuttable presumption of majority status for a reasonable period of time following successorship, and return to the prior rule of MV Transportation, 337 NLRB 770 (2002), under which an incumbent union in a successorship relationship is entitled only to a rebuttable presumption of majority support.   

In its initial decision on review, the D.C. Circuit (Judges Henderson and Edwards, Judge Katsas concurring) held that the Board properly adhered to UGL-UNICCO in reaching its withdrawal-of-recognition findings, and rejected the Hospital’s suggestion that the case was a fragile precedent because it had resulted from a change in the Board’s policy regarding the successor bar 13 years earlier.  See Hospital Menonita de Guayama, Inc. v. NLRB, 94 F.4th 1 (D.C. Cir. 2024).  The Court noted that it is well settled that “[a]gencies are free to change their existing policies as long as they provide a reasoned explanation for the change,” quoting Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211 (2016), and that “they are supposed, within the limits of the law and of fair and prudent administration, to adapt their rules and practices to the Nation’s needs in a volatile, changing economy,” quoting American Trucking Ass’ns v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 387 U.S. 397 (1967), and citing NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975).  The Court therefore applied the “normal deference” that courts apply in reviewing reasoned Board policy choices, and enforced the Board’s order. 

The Hospital filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied, and thereafter filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. Its petition, among other assertions, argued that the D.C. Circuit improperly afforded deference to the Board’s interpretation of the Act under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and referenced the pendency of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.  The U.S. Solicitor General then filed a brief on the Board’s behalf opposing the Hospital’s cert petition.  See U.S. Gov’t Brief in Opposition, 2024 WL 4752538 (U.S.).  Before consideration of the merits, however, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Loper Bright, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), which dispensed with the Chevron analytical framework for reviewing issues of statutory interpretation.  Thereafter, the Supreme Court issued an order in the Hospital’s case which granted cert, vacated the judgment, and “remanded to the [D.C. Circuit] for further consideration in light of Loper Bright.”

On remand from the Supreme Court, the case was assigned to a different panel of D.C. Circuit judges (Judges Rao and Walker; Judge Randolph, dissenting). After supplemental briefing and oral argument, the Court concluded that Loper Bright required that the Court “independently determine whether the successor bar is consistent with the Act,” and that it was required to “review[] the Hospital’s statutory challenge without deference to the Board.”  The Court then explained its view that the successor bar was inconsistent with the Act “[b]ecause the bar effectively suspends the Act’s core guarantees of employee freedom and majority rule in collective bargaining,” citing Sections 7 and 9(a) of the Act.  Having concluded that the Board lacked the statutory authority to impose the successor bar, the Court remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. 

Dissenting, Judge Randolph stated that, in overturning Chevron, “Loper Bright rejected the view that courts may treat statutory ambiguity as an implicit delegation of discretionary interpretive authority to an agency,” and that the proper issue on remand was only whether the original panel upheld the Board’s successor-bar rule by applying the Chevron framework—a question he answered in the negative.  Rather, Judge Randolph stated, the original panel properly invoked longstanding Supreme Court precedent that recognized that the Act tasked the NLRB with “’the primary responsibility for developing and applying national labor policy,’ and accordingly, the Supreme Court has required that reviewing courts ‘accord[] Board rules considerable deference.’”  94 F.4th at 14, quoting NLRB v. Curtin Matheson Sci., Inc., 494 U.S. 775 (1990) (citing cases).  For those reasons, among others, Judge Randolph concluded that the original panel’s decision should have been reinstated.

The Court’s opinion is here. 

                                                                                                 ***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Syntact, LLC  (10-CA-371322; JD-46-26)  Grayson, GA.  Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued his decision on July 23, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual. 

Injexed Medbar LLC  (16–CA-327568; JD-47-26)  Frisco and Plano, TX.  Administrative Law Judge Christal J. Key issued her decision on July 23, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual. 

Apex Fintech Services, LLC d/b/a Apex Fintech Solutions  (2-CA-325317; JD-48-26)  Winter Springs, FL.  Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on July 24, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual.

Starbucks Corporation  (9-CA-332361, et al.; JD(SF)–13–26)  Seattle, WA.  Administrative Law Judge John T. Giannopoulos issued his decision on July  24, 2026.  Charges filed by Workers United Labor Union International, a/w Service Employees International Union. 

                                                                                               ***

To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.